Blog

This week, I learned of two stories written by Washington Irving. They were The Legend of Sleepy Hollow, and Rip Van Winkle. I will give a small summary of both books so you know what I am talking about.

The Legend of Sleepy Hollow is about a school teacher who was new to the small town of Sleepy Hollow. He was a young man, and very superstitious. His name was Ichabod Crane. Ichabod is fascinated with the ghost stories shared with the people of Sleepy Hollow, especially the one about the headless horseman. It is said that a man lost his head during the Revolutionary war, and searches Sleepy Hollow every night in search of his head at the church. No sooner than Ichabod began to play the role of school master in this small town, did he crossed paths with a young woman named Katrina Van Tassel, the only daughter of wealthy farmer Baltus Van Tassel. Since then, he tried to win her heart. However, Katrina had many suitors, including prankster Brom van Brunt, who is also an expert horseback rider. Brom tries to get rid of Ichabod with pranks and tries to humiliate Ichabod, but fails. Ichabod is then asked to a party by Katrina, and accepts. He dances with her the whole time the night of the party, while Brom looks on with jealousy. Ichabod then returns home disappointed and downhearted. It is not said in the text, but it is assumed that Katrina says to Ichabod that she is interested in Brom. On the way home, Ichabod passes the supposedly haunted church. He sees a rider on a horse and calls out for them to identify themselves. Instead the rider chases Ichabod. In the light Ichabod sees that the rider chasing him is headless, with a sack on the horse which Ichabod supposed had his head. Ichabod aims the horse for the bridge leading outside the town. It is said that the headless horseman cannot cross the bridge. Ichabod makes it across and the headless horseman stops before the bridge, supposing Ichabod made it across and is now safe from the headless horseman. However, the headless horseman precedes to throw his head at Ichabod knocking him off the horse. Ichabod’s horse turns up the next morning at the Van Ripper house, and Ichabod was nowhere to be found.

Rip Van Winkle is a story about a Dutch-American named Rip Van Winkle who went for a walk in the Catskill mountains. He meets a man carrying a large barrel of liquor and decides to follow him. The man leads Winkle to a group of people playing ninepins. The men say nothing. Winkle drinks some of there liquor, and falls asleep. He wakes up and the men are gone. He realizes he is an old man. He travels back to his village and it is entirely different. He does not recognize anyone. He talks with some of the people and nothing explains what happened. He then meets his daughter, who is much older than when he last saw her. Things start to make sense then. He was asleep for twenty years, and he tells the villagers what had happened, and an old villager confirms Winkle’s story.

Were the detailed descriptions of the people around the two main characters equally important in the two stories Washington Irving wrote? I think they were. If you did not have the detailed descriptions of the people surrounding the two main characters, you probably would not understand the story as well as if you did have the descriptions. That goes for all stories as well.

Mason Locke Weems was an American minister, as well as an evangelical bookseller and author. He is best known for his biographies of historical figures. The best known one was a biography on George Washington, The Life of Washington. He wrote this book in the year 1800.

The Life of Washington was widely accepted after it was written. According to Google Books, “The effect of this “single, immortal, and dubious anecdote,” and others like it, has made this book one of the most influential in the history of American folklore. Originally published as an eighty-page pamphlet entitled The Life and Memorable Actions of George Washington, it quickly attained immense popularity.” This book helped to influence folklore about the life of Washington. I think that one reason why this book was widely accepted was because he was the first president of the United States of America, which is kind of a big deal.

In this book includes a lot of Washington’s successes in his life, but it also talks about his childhood and his private life, some of which we know nothing about, so he kind of came up with some stories to fill in the gaps and make Washington seem like a better person than he probably was.

How believable is Weems’ book on Washington? Some of these stories he tells about Washington are completely believable, because we have historical evidence that it actually happened. However, some stories he told about Washington he either exaggerated, or it just did not happen. He once said in his book, Washington, as a boy, threw a stone over the Rappahannock river which was over 300 yards long. Now, maybe some baseball pitchers can do this, but Washington as a kid? I doubt it. Some stories he completely made up to make Washington seem ever the more great than he really was. However, some stories are historically accurate. Weems also talk about Washington’s theology. He says that the public loves Washington. He says Washington was the model of greatness. He also gives a detailed description of Washington’s death. He says God has rewarded Washington greatly, and how angels arrive to bear him up to heaven. I would say that this highly unlikely that this would happen. Weems also gives us a detailed description of his childhood. He says that he played strategic army games with his friends, and he was amazing at them. He says that Washington was fast on his feet. He said Washington won every footrace because he was fast. He also tells the famous story of young George cutting down a cherry tree. We all know that story, right?

How believable is Weems’ book on Washington? I would say mostly not believable at all. Most of these stories are made up, but some are true. However, they are so intertwined, I could not figure out which of his stories were true, or false. However, it was widely accepted after Washington’s death, and helped add to common folklore. It was a bestseller, so apparently it was a really good book back then.

 If I wanted to make money by writing a self-improvement book for Americans, what topic would I chose? The topic would be related to self-improvement, so it would be a book that helps people improve their own knowledge, character, or status. I would rather write a book that helps people improve a person’s character. That would be my topic. I would write a book that helps people improve their character. I would do this by using the Bible for references to write the book. The Bible is full of lessons about how to model your character and it gives examples of who to model yourself after. I would use the Bible to write a book about how people can model their character and examples they can use to model their own life after. However, this book might not be a self-improvement book, but more like a Biblical counseling book. But, I would rather write a Biblical counseling book focusing on the topic of self-improving your character based on what the Bible says, rather than a regular self-improvement book focusing on improving your character. I would write this book to help people improve their character using Biblical methods so they can not only improve their character based on the Bible, but they can also grow closer to God while doing it. That way, people can improve their character based on what the Bible says and at the same time, grow closer to God. That way, if the reader was having trouble with their character, they might read the book, find inspiration, and the book can help the reader change their character and give them examples of Biblical people to help them. However, the book could not only help them with this, but it could motivate them to get deeper into the Bible and grow closer to God and help them become a better Christian.

If I wanted to make money by writing this book, I would chose the topic improving you character based on what the Bible says. I would write this book, and maybe make money. There is a chance that I would not make a lot of money, but that is fine. I would not really care about the money, but it would be nice to get some. I would write it to help people improve their character based on Biblical standards, and it might even encourage them to get into the Bible themselves and grow closer to God. This is why I would this book, to help people improve their character based on what the Bible says. That way, people can grow in Christ and improve their character at the same time. That they put off the old man, and put on the new man in Christ.

Ephesians 4:22-24

“that you put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and that you put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness.”

 This topic refers to Thomas Paine’s The American Crisis, published during the American Revolution. A critique is kind of like a criticism. So what I am supposed to to is write a criticism referring to Pain’s American Crisis from the point of view of a loyalist to the British.

Paine’s idea of this pamphlet was idealizes the American citizens and the countries origins, and uses this to encourage them to fight for independence rather than be subjects loyal to Britain. He encourages them to continue to fight for independence in their strive for freedom from Britain.

If I were loyal to Britain, I would say that the colonists are wasting their time, that Paine was wasting his time writing these pamphlets. That even though they wanted independence, Britain still owned them, and they were loyal to Britain whether they liked it or not. I would also say that America would prosper much better if it were under Britain rather than independent from it. That the men trying to fight for independence would all die in the war, and America would still be under Britain’s control. I would tell Paine that he was giving the colonists false hope, telling they to fight for independence and claim freedom from the British. That his false hope encouraging the colonists to fight for independence would get the colonists killed. That him and his pamphlet would cost the colonists their lives.

If I were loyal to Britain (which thankfully I am not), this would be my criticism of Paine’s pamphlet. I do not know if it would do any good though.

The author of Common Sense, Thomas Paine, was an American Founding Father, even though he was born in England (he was actually encouraged to move to Philadelphia by Benjamin Franklin in London). He was also a political activist, philosopher, political theorist, and revolutionary. He is most remembered for his pamphlet called Common Sense. Common sense was written by Paine from 1775-1776. It was a forty-seven page pamphlet that advocated independence to the thirteen colonies from Great Britain. Paine argues for two main points in Common Sense. He argues for independence from Britain, and also for the creation of a democratic republic. This pamphlet inspired the people to fight for their independence from Britain. It also had a huge impact on the American independence movement. In this pamphlet, he continually calls the founding fathers and the colonists to take action against the oppression of the British government. Because he was born in Britain, he understood the injustices of Britain. Because of this, he made it clearly obvious in his pamphlet to call for independence from Britain. He argues this throughout his pamphlet.

What is the most illogical argument in Common Sense? There are many arguments displayed in common sense. For starters, Paine argued that it was crazy for an island to rule over a continent, and of course he was talking about Great Britain ruling over America. He also argued that if America were free from Great Britain, they could avoid European conflicts. He went on to argue that London was way too far away from America to rule it, and that the King and Parliament would eventually rule over America for Britain’s benefit instead of the America’s, which was the exact opposite for why the Pilgrims left in the first place. Some loyalists to Britain argued the America has thrived under Britain’s rule, but Paine argues that America would had thrived even more if it was an independent country. He argued that one of America’s greatest strengths was trade and commerce, and because of this it would have been even more successful if it had not been limited to trade with only the British. He also argued that Britain only protected America against Britain’s enemies only for Britain’s benefits. Paine argued that Britain’s enemies had no quarrel with America, and that America would eventually be pulled into Britain’s wars. He communicated with the colonists through his pamphlet on a more personal level, and he said that the moving to America was to escape the tyranny of Britain, but they were still under it’s rule. He said that with independence, they could gain freedom from Britain, which is why they left Britain to move to America in the first place. With his pamphlet, he was able to invoke passion into the colonists throughout the colonies. Now, these were all valid arguments, but what is the most illogical argument in Common Sense? According to LitCharts, “Paine’s argument throughout Common Sense relies heavily upon a logical fallacy: he consistently appeals to God as the definitive moral authority.“